Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Framing optional genetic testing in the context of mandatory newborn screening tests

Authors: Sarah E. Lillie, Beth A. Tarini, Nancy K. Janz, Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Parents are increasingly faced with decisions about optional newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) despite no consistent policy for communicating information about such testing. We examined whether framing optional NBS alongside mandatory NBS influenced intention to participate in optional NBS.

Methods

For this Internet-administered study, 2,991 adults read a hypothetical vignette in which optional NBS for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) was either presented by itself (in isolation), alongside a description including the total number of mandatory NBS tests (“bundled” mandatory context), or alongside a listing of each mandatory NBS test (“unbundled” mandatory context). We assessed associations with participants’ intended participation using ordered logistic regression models, and associations with attitudes towards optional DMD NBS and subjective norms using Analysis of Variance.

Results

Participants were more likely to choose optional DMD NBS if they also read information about mandatory NBS (either bundled or unbundled) versus when DMD NBS was presented in isolation. Participants who read about optional DMD NBS in isolation also reported such testing to be less important and that they would worry more about the results than those who also saw mandatory NBS information.

Conclusions

Future NBS programs should pay attention to the framing of optional testing communication, as it influences parental behavior. Predictors of NBS uptake will become increasingly important as NBS programs continue expanding.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Botkin JR, Goldenberg AJ, Rothwell E, Anderson RA, Lewis MH. Retention and research use of residual newborn screening bloodspots. Pediatrics. 2013;131:120–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Botkin JR, Goldenberg AJ, Rothwell E, Anderson RA, Lewis MH. Retention and research use of residual newborn screening bloodspots. Pediatrics. 2013;131:120–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Fearing MK, Levy HL. Expanded newborn screening using tandem mass spectrometry. Adv Pediatr. 2003;50:81–111.PubMed Fearing MK, Levy HL. Expanded newborn screening using tandem mass spectrometry. Adv Pediatr. 2003;50:81–111.PubMed
3.
go back to reference United States Preventive Services Task Force. Expanding newborn screening: process, policy, and priorities. Hastings Cent Rep. 2008;38:32–9.CrossRef United States Preventive Services Task Force. Expanding newborn screening: process, policy, and priorities. Hastings Cent Rep. 2008;38:32–9.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference American College of Medical Genetics Newborn Screening Expert Group. Newborn screening: toward a uniform screening panel and system—executive summary. Pediatrics. 2006;117 Suppl 3:296–307. American College of Medical Genetics Newborn Screening Expert Group. Newborn screening: toward a uniform screening panel and system—executive summary. Pediatrics. 2006;117 Suppl 3:296–307.
7.
go back to reference Pass K, Green NS, Lorey F, Sherwin J, Comeau AM. Pilot programs in newborn screening. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2006;12:293–300.CrossRefPubMed Pass K, Green NS, Lorey F, Sherwin J, Comeau AM. Pilot programs in newborn screening. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2006;12:293–300.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Botkin JR, Lewis MH, Watson MS, Swoboda KJ, Anderson R, Berry SA, et al. Bioethics and legal work group of the newborn screening translational research network. Parental permission for pilot newborn screening research: guidelines from the NBSTRN. Pediatrics. 2014;133:e410–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Botkin JR, Lewis MH, Watson MS, Swoboda KJ, Anderson R, Berry SA, et al. Bioethics and legal work group of the newborn screening translational research network. Parental permission for pilot newborn screening research: guidelines from the NBSTRN. Pediatrics. 2014;133:e410–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
10.
go back to reference Hasegawa LE, Fergus KA, Ojeda N, Aua SM. Parental attitudes toward ethical and social issues surrounding the expansion of newborn screening using new technologies. Public Health Genomics. 2011;14:298–306.CrossRefPubMed Hasegawa LE, Fergus KA, Ojeda N, Aua SM. Parental attitudes toward ethical and social issues surrounding the expansion of newborn screening using new technologies. Public Health Genomics. 2011;14:298–306.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Mak CM, Lam CW, Law CY, Siu WK, Kwong LL, Chan KL, et al. Parental attitudes on expanded newborn screening in Hong Kong. Public Health. 2012;126:954–9.CrossRefPubMed Mak CM, Lam CW, Law CY, Siu WK, Kwong LL, Chan KL, et al. Parental attitudes on expanded newborn screening in Hong Kong. Public Health. 2012;126:954–9.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Hayeems RZ, Miller FA, Bombard Y, Avard D, Carroll J, Wilson B, et al. Expectations and values about expanded newborn screening: a public engagement study. Health Expect. 2015;18:419–29.CrossRefPubMed Hayeems RZ, Miller FA, Bombard Y, Avard D, Carroll J, Wilson B, et al. Expectations and values about expanded newborn screening: a public engagement study. Health Expect. 2015;18:419–29.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Campbell E, Ross LF. Parental attitudes regarding newborn screening of PKU and DMD. Am J Med Genet. 2003;120A:209–14.CrossRefPubMed Campbell E, Ross LF. Parental attitudes regarding newborn screening of PKU and DMD. Am J Med Genet. 2003;120A:209–14.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Parsons EP, King JT, Israel JA, Bradley DM. Mothers’ accounts of screening newborn babies in Wales (UK). Midwifery. 2007;23:59–65.CrossRefPubMed Parsons EP, King JT, Israel JA, Bradley DM. Mothers’ accounts of screening newborn babies in Wales (UK). Midwifery. 2007;23:59–65.CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
go back to reference Moody L, Choudhry K. Parental views on informed consent for expanded newborn screening. Health Expect. 2013;16:239–50.CrossRefPubMed Moody L, Choudhry K. Parental views on informed consent for expanded newborn screening. Health Expect. 2013;16:239–50.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Lipstein EA, Nabi E, Perrin JM, Luff D, Browning MF, Kuhlthau KA. Parents’ decision making in newborn screening: options, choices, and information needs. Pediatrics. 2010;126:696–704.CrossRefPubMed Lipstein EA, Nabi E, Perrin JM, Luff D, Browning MF, Kuhlthau KA. Parents’ decision making in newborn screening: options, choices, and information needs. Pediatrics. 2010;126:696–704.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Nicholls SG, Southern KW. Parental information use in the context of newborn bloodspot screening. An exploratory mixed methods study. J Commun Genet. 2012;3:251–7.CrossRef Nicholls SG, Southern KW. Parental information use in the context of newborn bloodspot screening. An exploratory mixed methods study. J Commun Genet. 2012;3:251–7.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Mendell JR, Shilling C, Leslie ND, Flanigan KM, Al Dahhak R, Gastier Foster J, et al. Evidence-based path to newborn screening for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Ann Neurol. 2012;71:304–13.CrossRefPubMed Mendell JR, Shilling C, Leslie ND, Flanigan KM, Al Dahhak R, Gastier Foster J, et al. Evidence-based path to newborn screening for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Ann Neurol. 2012;71:304–13.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Ross LF. Screening for conditions that do not meet the Wilson and Junger criteria: The case of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Am J Med Genet A. 2006;140:914–22.CrossRefPubMed Ross LF. Screening for conditions that do not meet the Wilson and Junger criteria: The case of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Am J Med Genet A. 2006;140:914–22.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Nichols SG. Proceduralisation, choice and parental reflection on decisions to accept newborn bloodspot screening. J Med Ethics. 2012;38:299–303.CrossRef Nichols SG. Proceduralisation, choice and parental reflection on decisions to accept newborn bloodspot screening. J Med Ethics. 2012;38:299–303.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Nichols SG, Southern KW. Parental decision-making and acceptance of newborn bloodspot screening: an exploratory study. PLoS One. 2013;8:e79441.CrossRef Nichols SG, Southern KW. Parental decision-making and acceptance of newborn bloodspot screening: an exploratory study. PLoS One. 2013;8:e79441.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Parsons EP, Moore C, Israel JA, Hood K, Clarke AJ, Bradley DM. Emphasizing parental choice on newborn screening. Br J Midwifery. 2005;13:165–8.CrossRef Parsons EP, Moore C, Israel JA, Hood K, Clarke AJ, Bradley DM. Emphasizing parental choice on newborn screening. Br J Midwifery. 2005;13:165–8.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50:179–211.CrossRef Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50:179–211.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Michie S, Dormandy E, French DP, Marteau TM. Using theory of planned behavior to predict screening uptake in two contexts. Psychol Health. 2004;19:705–18.CrossRef Michie S, Dormandy E, French DP, Marteau TM. Using theory of planned behavior to predict screening uptake in two contexts. Psychol Health. 2004;19:705–18.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Tluczek A, Koscik RL, Farrell PM, Rock MJ. Psychosocial risk associated with newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: parents' experience while awaiting the sweat test appointment. Pediatrics. 2005;115:1692–704.CrossRefPubMed Tluczek A, Koscik RL, Farrell PM, Rock MJ. Psychosocial risk associated with newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: parents' experience while awaiting the sweat test appointment. Pediatrics. 2005;115:1692–704.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Skinner D, Choudhury S, Sideris J, Guarda S, Buansi A, Roche M, et al. Parents’ decisions to screen newborns for FMR1 gene expansions in a pilot research project. Pediatrics. 2011;127:e1455–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Skinner D, Choudhury S, Sideris J, Guarda S, Buansi A, Roche M, et al. Parents’ decisions to screen newborns for FMR1 gene expansions in a pilot research project. Pediatrics. 2011;127:e1455–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Epstein RM. Whole mind and shared mind in clinical decision-making. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;90:200–6.CrossRefPubMed Epstein RM. Whole mind and shared mind in clinical decision-making. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;90:200–6.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Hargreaves KM, Stweart RJ, Oliver SR. Informed choice and public health screening for children: the case of blood spot screening. Health Expect. 2005;8:161–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hargreaves KM, Stweart RJ, Oliver SR. Informed choice and public health screening for children: the case of blood spot screening. Health Expect. 2005;8:161–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
go back to reference Rothwell E, Anderson RA, Swoboda KJ, Stark L, Botkin JR. Public attitudes regarding a pilot study of newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy. Am J Med Genet A. 2013;161:679–86.CrossRefPubMedCentral Rothwell E, Anderson RA, Swoboda KJ, Stark L, Botkin JR. Public attitudes regarding a pilot study of newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy. Am J Med Genet A. 2013;161:679–86.CrossRefPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference Partridge TA. Impending therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Curr Opin Neurol. 2011;24:415–22.CrossRefPubMed Partridge TA. Impending therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Curr Opin Neurol. 2011;24:415–22.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Botkin JR, Clayton EW, Fost NC, Burke W, Murray TH, Baily MA, et al. Newborn screening technology: proceed with caution. Pediatrics. 2006;117:1793–9.CrossRefPubMed Botkin JR, Clayton EW, Fost NC, Burke W, Murray TH, Baily MA, et al. Newborn screening technology: proceed with caution. Pediatrics. 2006;117:1793–9.CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference Arnold CL, Davis TC, Frempong JO, Humiston SG, Bocchini A, Kennen EM, et al. Assessment of newborn screening parent education materials. Pediatrics. 2006;117 Suppl 3:320–5.CrossRef Arnold CL, Davis TC, Frempong JO, Humiston SG, Bocchini A, Kennen EM, et al. Assessment of newborn screening parent education materials. Pediatrics. 2006;117 Suppl 3:320–5.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Davis TC, Humiston SG, Arnold CL, Bocchini Jr JA, Bass 3rd PF, Kennen EM, et al. Recommendations for effective newborn screening communication: results of focus groups with parents, providers, and experts. Pediatrics. 2006;117 Suppl 3:326–40.CrossRef Davis TC, Humiston SG, Arnold CL, Bocchini Jr JA, Bass 3rd PF, Kennen EM, et al. Recommendations for effective newborn screening communication: results of focus groups with parents, providers, and experts. Pediatrics. 2006;117 Suppl 3:326–40.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Loeben GL, Marteau TM, Wilfond BS. Mixed messages: presentation of information in cystic fibrosis-screening pamphlets. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;63:1181–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Loeben GL, Marteau TM, Wilfond BS. Mixed messages: presentation of information in cystic fibrosis-screening pamphlets. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;63:1181–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Framing optional genetic testing in the context of mandatory newborn screening tests
Authors
Sarah E. Lillie
Beth A. Tarini
Nancy K. Janz
Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0173-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2015 Go to the issue